Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKZOJZoological Journal of the Linnean Society0024-4082The Lin- nean Society of London, 2006? 2006 147? 239275 Original Article PHYLOGENY AND SYSTEMATICS OF THE PIERIDAEM. F. BRABY ET AL. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 147, 239–275. With 8 figures Molecular phylogeny and systematics of the Pieridae (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea): higher classification and Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-abstract/147/2/239/2631026 by Harvard Library user on 21 November 2018 biogeography MICHAEL F. BRABY1,2*, ROGER VILA1 and NAOMI E. PIERCE1 1Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford St, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA 2School of Botany and Zoology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia Received May 2004; accepted for publication October 2005 The systematic relationships of the butterfly family Pieridae are poorly understood. Much of our current under- standing is based primarily on detailed morphological observations made 50–70 years ago. However, the family and its putative four subfamilies and two tribes, have rarely been subjected to rigorous phylogenetic analysis. Here we present results based on an analysis of molecular characters used to reconstruct the phylogeny of the Pieridae in order to infer higher-level classification above the generic level and patterns of historical biogeography. Our sample contained 90 taxa representing 74 genera and six subgenera, or 89% of all genera recognized in the family. Three complementary approaches were employed: (1) a combined analysis of a 30 taxon subset for sequences from four gene regions, including elongation factor-1 alpha (EF-1α), wingless, cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI), and 28S (3675 bp, 1031 parsimony-informative characters), mainly to establish higher-level relationships, (2) a single-gene analysis of the 90 taxon data set for sequences from EF-1α (1066 bp, 364 parsimony-informative characters), mainly to establish lower-level relationships, and (3) an all available data analysis of the entire data set for sequences from the four genes, to recover both deep and shallow nodes. Analyses using maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood and Baye- sian inference provided similar results. All supported monophyly for the four subfamilies but not for the two tribes, with the Anthocharidini polyphyletic and the Pierini paraphyletic. The combined and all available data analyses sup- port the following relationships among the subfamilies: ((Pseudopontiinae + Dismorphiinae) + (Coliadinae + Pierinae)), corroborating Ehrlich’s 1958 phenetic hypothesis. On the basis of these analyses, and additional mor- phological and life history evidence, we propose a reclassification of the subfamily Pierinae into two tribes (Antho- charidini s.s., Pierini s.s.) and two informal groups (Colotis group, Leptosia), with the tribe Pierini s.s. subdivided into three subtribes (Appiadina, Pierina, Aporiina) and three genera (Elodina, Dixeia, Belenois) of uncertain status (incertae sedis). The combined and all available data analyses support the following relationships among the Pierinae: (Colotis group + Anthocharidini s.s. + Leptosia + (Elodina + ((Dixeia + Belenois) + Appiadina + Pierina + Aporiina))). Application of a molecular clock calibrated using fossil evidence and semiparametric rate smoothing sug- gests that divergence between the Pierina and Aporiina occurred no later than the Palaeocene (> 60 Myr). The mini- mum estimate for the age of the crown-group of the Pieridae was 112–82 Myr, with a mean of 95 Myr. A historical biogeographical hypothesis is proposed to explain the present-day distribution of the clade Pseudopontiinae + Dis- morphiinae, which argues for an origin of the two subfamilies in western Gondwana (Africa + South America) during the Late Cretaceous. © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 147, 239–275. ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Coliadinae – Cretaceous – Dismorphiinae – Dispersal – Gondwana – Pierinae – Pseudopontiinae – Vicariance. INTRODUCTION The Pieridae are among the most poorly understood *Corresponding author. Current address: Biodiversity butterfly families within the Papilionoidea in terms Conservation Division, Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, PO Box 496, Palmerston NT 0831, of their higher-level systematics and classification. Australia. E-mail: [email protected] Indeed, almost 20 years ago Robbins & Henson (1986) © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 147, 239–275 239 240 M. F. BRABY ET AL. emphasized that ‘. there is glaring need for a world- 1895; Talbot, 1939; Mosher, 1969). Many species wide treatment of the pierines’. Yet pierids have migrate and/or exhibit seasonal phenotypic variation. played an important role in evolutionary studies (e.g. Much of our current understanding of the higher Courtney, 1986; Watt, Donohue & Carter, 1996; Brun- classification and interrelationships of the Pieridae ton, 1998; Stavenga et al., 2004; Kemp, Rutowski & has been based on detailed morphological work con- Mendoza, 2005) and include species of major economic ducted 50–70 years ago (Klots, 1933; Ehrlich, 1958). significance, such as the cabbage whites (Pieris) and The family is currently arranged in four subfamilies Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-abstract/147/2/239/2631026 by Harvard Library user on 21 November 2018 sulphurs (Colias). Unlike several other families, or (Pseudopontiinae, Dismorphiinae, Coliadinae, Pieri- subfamilies/tribes within other families, such as the nae), with the Pierinae usually divided into two tribes Papilionidae (Miller, 1987; Caterino et al., 2001; (Pierini, Anthocharidini) (Ackery, 1984; Bridges, 1988; Braby, Trueman & Eastwood, 2005), Nymphalidae de Jong et al., 1996; Ackery et al., 1999; Vane-Wright, (Ackery & Vane-Wright, 1984; Brower, 2000; Penz & 2003). The Pseudopontiinae are monotypic, containing Peggie, 2003; Wahlberg, Weingartner & Nylin, 2003; the single monobasic genus Pseudopontia Plötz from Freitas & Brown, 2004) and Riodinidae (Harvey, 1987; central and western Africa. The Dismorphiinae are Campbell, Brower & Pierce, 2000), the Pieridae and relatively small, comprising approximately 60 species its putative subfamilies and tribes have rarely been in seven genera and, with the exception of the single subjected to rigorous phylogenetic analyses of morpho- disjunct genus Leptidea Billberg in the Palaearctic, logical or molecular data. Although Janz & Nylin are found predominantly in South America, with a (1998; pers. comm) published a phylogeny of the smaller representation in Central America. The Pieridae based on 39 terminal taxa (with five taxa Coliadinae comprise approximately 220 species in 18 each comprising the combination of two genera), their genera, and are cosmopolitan, although the greater cladistic analysis of previously published morphologi- proportion of species occurs in tropical latitudes. The cal data dealt with only two subfamilies (Coliadinae Pierinae, also cosmopolitan, are by far the largest sub- and Pierinae) and provided little resolution within the family, containing approximately 840 species in 57 major clades. genera (Ackery et al., 1999; Braby, 2005), and thus Although the monophyly of the Pieridae is well make up between two-thirds and three-quarters of the established (Kristensen, 1976; de Jong, Vane-Wright total species and generic diversity of the family. & Ackery, 1996; Ackery, de Jong & Vane-Wright, 1999; Although the four subfamilies have remained rela- Wahlberg et al., 2005), the phylogenetic position of tively stable in terms of their composition, consider- pierids in relation to the other butterfly families able uncertainties exist in the systematics and is uncertain (Robbins, 1988; Vane-Wright, 2003; phylogenetic relationships among the higher taxa Wahlberg et al., 2005). The Pieridae are considered (Fig. 1). Klots (1933), building on his own earlier work to be either the sister family to the Papilionidae (Klots, 1929) as well as that of Butler (1870), Scudder (Ehrlich, 1958; Scott, 1985), or, more probably, sister (1875b), Dixey (1894, 1932), Grote (1900), Röber to Nymphalidae + (Riodinidae + Lycaenidae) (Kris- (1908–09), and Aurivillius (1910) among others, rec- tensen, 1976; de Jong et al., 1996; Weller, Pashley & ognized three subfamilies, with one of these, the Pieri- Martin, 1996; Ackery et al., 1999; Wahlberg et al., nae, consisting of three tribes (Euchloini, Rhodocerini, 2005). However, unlike some other families (e.g. Pierini). The Rhodocerini and Euchloini have since Nymphalidae, Lycaenidae), the integrity of the proven to be subjective synonyms of the Coliadini Pieridae as a natural group has never been in dispute. (Talbot, 1935) and Anthocharidini (Bridges, 1988), Synapomorphies supporting monophyly include wing respectively. Klots’ intuitive phylogeny (Fig. 1A) scales with pterin pigments, foretarsus with distinctly showed that the Dismorphiinae and Pseudopontiinae bifid claws, outer edge of forewing third axillary with were closely related and formed the sister group to the tooth, and lateral plates of pronotum not fused medi- Pierinae. Clench (1955) followed Klots and recognized ally (Ackery et al., 1999; Vane-Wright, 2003). The the same three subfamilies, but noted that the family is worldwide in distribution, and contains Pseudopontiinae were ‘intermediate’ between the two approximately 1100 species (Robbins, 1982; Ackery other subfamilies. et